Free Republic Browse · Search General/Chat Topics · Post Article

Hypothesis: All Odd Numbers Greater Than One are Prime.
My twisted mind ^ | January 18, 2011 | Vanity

Posted on 01/18/2011 11:17:36 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets

Hypothesis: All odd numbers greater than one are prime

Proofs:

Engineer: 3, 5, 7, YES!

Physicist: 3, 5, 7, [experimental error], 11, 13, [experimental error], 17, 19. [grant runs dry.] At the 95% confidence level and within the limit of experimental error, we cannot reject the hypothesis that all odd numbers greater than one are primes.

Accountant: What do you want them to be?

Mathematician: Before we can answer that question we need to define a Galois field of positive integers and then over that field specify an operation, factorization such that for any member of the field, the operation of factorization produces a unique set of primatives, which are members of that field and which we will call “primes”. Now, ok, I forgot, what was the question?

AP Reporter: Experts say that it does not matter whether or not any particular odd number greater than one is prime, because it’s Sarah Palin’s fault, regardless, unless it’s a good thing in which case, President Obama hasn’t gotten nearly the credit he deserves.

President Obama: Aspirationally, as part of the American Dream, every number, should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it is “prime” and furthermore, it is invidious and unfair to label certain numbers as “odd” or "prime" by some arbitrary standard of divisablity. I stand for what unites us, not what divides us!

Ezra Klein: It’s just a stunt! No body can tell what what numbers mean! They’re really old, over a hundred years old. Why should anyone today feel constrained by what a bunch of people in Greece or wherever, way back in grandpa’s day, thought about prime numbers? How many prime numbers can there possibly be? And who’s ever heard of any of them? Do you personally know any prime numbers? Can you name two or three? See, I thought not!

Andrei Cherny (of nolabels.org) : The very terms “odd” and “prime” are mere labels. We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.

TOPICS: Chit/Chat
Embellish, mock, destroy, deride. BTW, the very last sentence is lifted, unaltered, from the nolabels.org website.
1 posted on 01/18/2011 11:17:40 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

NYT Headline: Not all odd number greater than one may be prime. Subhead: Women, minorities disproportionately impacted, experts say.

2 posted on 01/18/2011 11:19:49 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Entertaining post.

3 posted on 01/18/2011 11:20:53 AM PST by Padams

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

4 posted on 01/18/2011 11:23:18 AM PST by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Nitpicking Freeper: All Odd Numbers Greater Than [OR EQUAL TO] One are Prime.

There, fixed it.

5 posted on 01/18/2011 11:28:41 AM PST by DManA

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
6 posted on 01/18/2011 11:28:44 AM PST by spunkets

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Women’s Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a patriarchal construct designed to oppress women.

Gender Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a breeder construct designed to oppress GLBT people.

African-American Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a racist construct designed to oppress African-Americans.

7 posted on 01/18/2011 11:29:15 AM PST by ModelBreaker

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Nine is not a prime number.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
8 posted on 01/18/2011 11:30:39 AM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)

To: DManA

One, by definition, is not prime. I have suspicions about 9 and 15, and I’ll keep my eye on 23. Just in case.

9 posted on 01/18/2011 11:31:10 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: ConorMacNessa
Nine is not a prime number.

We'll have to recheck your calculations. For now we are carrying it as an experimental error. (See "physicists" above.)

10 posted on 01/18/2011 11:32:49 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Wait....what? I forgot the question. Guess my profession.

11 posted on 01/18/2011 11:32:52 AM PST by PuzzledInTX

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Fascist.

12 posted on 01/18/2011 11:35:12 AM PST by DManA

To: ConorMacNessa

2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541

13 posted on 01/18/2011 11:35:34 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: DManA

If we let “1” in the club, then the prime number theorem gets messy. It’s the uniqueness part.

14 posted on 01/18/2011 11:36:44 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Nice try. Needs a bit more development work.

“Dying is easy....Comedy is hard.”
attributed to many actors, perhaps originally from Edmund Kean.

15 posted on 01/18/2011 11:39:05 AM PST by devere

To: PuzzledInTX
Wait....what? I forgot the question. Guess my profession.

Politician? (I work with a lot of "applied" mathematicians. Most of them don't remember Rolle's Theorem, but they transpose a mean Jacobian.)

16 posted on 01/18/2011 11:40:30 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: devere

That’s not embellishment. I suppose it’s intended as mockery, destruction or derision, then?

17 posted on 01/18/2011 11:42:54 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

4-8-15-16-23-42

18 posted on 01/18/2011 11:43:53 AM PST by ichabod1 (Hail Mary Full of Grace, The Lord Is With Thee...)

To: ichabod1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology_of_Lost#The_Numbers

Are you a Libra?

19 posted on 01/18/2011 11:46:21 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Obama: it is racist to call any number odd.

20 posted on 01/18/2011 11:47:19 AM PST by libh8er

To: Eyes Unclouded

Engineer: 2.000

21 posted on 01/18/2011 11:48:21 AM PST by Fresh Wind (TOTUS knows how to give a speech. Obama knows how to read.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I’m not sure, I hear they changed the zodiac dates.

22 posted on 01/18/2011 11:48:27 AM PST by ichabod1 (Hail Mary Full of Grace, The Lord Is With Thee...)

To: ichabod1

Not in my newspaper.

23 posted on 01/18/2011 11:50:49 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: DManA
Nitpicking Freeper: All Odd Numbers Greater Than [OR EQUAL TO] One are Prime.

One is not a prime. There, fixed your fix.
24 posted on 01/18/2011 11:52:17 AM PST by aNYCguy

To: Fresh Wind

Software Engineer:

float x = 2.000;

x = sqrt(float(4))

if Not(x = 2.000)
destroy.Centrifuge;
end

25 posted on 01/18/2011 11:53:16 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: aNYCguy
One is not a prime.

That is soooo judgmental. I'll bet you're a Taurus.

26 posted on 01/18/2011 11:56:03 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

On the first day of basic training, the drill sergeant put his traumatized recruits into something of a platoon formation and directed the soldiers to count off. From somewhere in the third or fourth rank, he heard a soldier with a very effeminate voice drag out a long "oooooone" before the rest of the soldiers down the rank loudly and quickly barked out, "2, 3, 4, etc." Incensed at the apparent lack of motivation, the drill sergeant stormed over to the first file, eyed the apparent offender up and down and snarled, "Are you 'One'"?

The recruit lisped back with girlish grin, "Why yeth, thergeant. Are you one, too?"

27 posted on 01/18/2011 11:57:23 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
28 posted on 01/18/2011 11:59:25 AM PST by bvw

To: bvw
29 posted on 01/18/2011 12:05:10 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Joe 6-pack

You went to basic with Bawney Fwank?

30 posted on 01/18/2011 12:06:34 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: bvw

Wonder how big those get....LOL?

31 posted on 01/18/2011 12:07:06 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Working with a lot of mathematicians, you must be particularly lonesome in MA. ;-) I know I am.

32 posted on 01/18/2011 12:13:19 PM PST by PuzzledInTX

To: PuzzledInTX

No, they are mostly very good guys and girls. Sure, they made a mistakes when they were young and in college, but they haven’t let ruin their lives.

33 posted on 01/18/2011 12:15:58 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

No, just a straight review from a tough critic.

34 posted on 01/18/2011 12:16:53 PM PST by devere

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I’d let in 1 before 2. Two isn’t even odd.

35 posted on 01/18/2011 12:32:42 PM PST by sportutegrl

To: sportutegrl

In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (or the unique-prime-factorization theorem) states that any integer greater than 1 can be written as a unique product (up to ordering of the factors) of prime numbers.

We need two to take care to those pesky even numbers. If you let one in, then the factorization is not unique, since you can add as many factors of one as you please.

Frinstance: 6936 = 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2 = 1 x 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2 = 1^2 x 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2 = 1^3 x 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2

36 posted on 01/18/2011 12:42:13 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

 Free Republic Browse · Search General/Chat Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794